San Marcos free press. [volume] (San Marcos, Tex.) 1877-1892, 1887-11-03

IGt y otts Oth ASRrA't ss0oSs
Mills, Gov. Sul Ross and John Ire
land, were gallant defenders of the
Lost Cause and honest opponents OF
prohibition. John II. Reagan, Rev.,
Mr.. Carroll ct al, were defenders OF
the Lost Cause and warm supporters
OF prohibition. The former are de-
nounced by the San Marcos FREE
PREss on every available occasion for
their courses through life; the latter
are praised. The FREE Press is a
strong prohibition paper.
Thus speaks the Victoria Advocate.
To begin with it thus knocks in the
head the charge which has been 50
often made by the anti prohibition
papers Of Texas, including the Advo-
cate, and which has also come from
other sources, that we are influenced
by sectional dislike, since by the Ad-
vocate's own showing we applaud
the ex- Confederates Reagan and Gar
roll-the former once jeff Davis
postmaster general. We are proved,
then, to be that much ahead Of our
maligners, who never cease showing
their antipathy toward us for no 9th
or reason than because we are from
the other side of Mason and Dixons
line.
Now as to the insinuation that we
"denounce" the anti-prohibitionists
named because they are such. We
deny having done anything OF the
sort-we have merely met their argu-
ments in genteel way, Nor have
we denounced them for their "courses
through life," as the Advocate asserts
we have done no more than criti'
Else them as public men when we
thought we had good occasion so to
do. As to our alleged opposition to
Gov. Ross, which the Advocate II
another place specially cites against
us, our criticisms have been restrict
ed to bis course in the Lunatic Asy
lum muddle-in persistently sustain
ing and retaining an unworthy mar
at its head-a man proved to be unre
liable and incompetent. Will the
Advocate presume to justify hi
course in this matter? We hardly
think it will. Why, then, condemn
us for exposing it, We supported
Ross for Governor before and ma.
do so again. But is that any reason
why we should not criticise hin
when, as in the case before us, he Ii
clearly in the wrong? We are no
that sort of on editor-not that sor
of a democrat. We stand for tn
best interests of the people at large
and wear no mans and no party
collar.
As to our alleged partiality toward
public men who are prohibitionists
we might we'll retort on our accuser
their rabid intolerance Of such mer
Take Senator Reagan, for instance
Neither his antecedents as q membe
of the Confederate cabinet, nor hi
long and honorable public services a
a representative man in Texas, i
honor and honesty unimpeachablt
have been sufficient to save him fror
the persistent slurs and defamatlo
of anti-prohibition and professedl
democratic papers and speakers @
: this state And why7 Simply bt
) cause he took ground in favor of tn
: amendment, expressing his "regret
: that Democrats should seek to ider
4 tify that great and grand historl
: party with the fortunes and fate
a whisky shops, drunkards and Grim
) nails" And because we, an ex-Indiar
abolitionist, as they choose to call u
defended this grand old man OF Te
as, ex-Confederate though he is, "
have been made an humble partak'
+ of the denunciations leveled again
him.
As to ex Gov. ireland, the edit
of the Victoria Advocate is we
!, known to have been quite as severe
= critic as we have been, down to Il
L period when Ireland went back on h
. former temperance professions al
1 declared his adherence to the whist
d interest; then the Advocate for Il
!, first time suddenly discovered th
. he was a great man and statesman!
MI So much for tae boomerang hurl'
e by the Advocate against u.s. which
will be seen, returns to plague 6
it inventor" Next
|
In our opinion it would be seriol
blunder in President Cleveland to n